**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wonder how much tax could be gained by closing loopholes, that the super rich take advantage off and capping how much can be spent as 'expenses'. Oh and if we stopped providing subsidies to private corporations. And forced international (Amazon) to pay taxes.
Billions, more revenue is lost through tax avoidance and evasion than Benifit Freud, if the government spent the same amount of money they spend catching benifit cheats on tax avoidance they could increase tax revenues by billions. But they won't because these are the tory donors
Tax avoidance is essentially taking advantage of loop holes that are not in the spirit or goal of the tax system. Pension pot contributions are not tax avoidance because they have been designed withth the intent to be free from tax.
It’s actually called tax planning, there are three terms not two. Tax planning includes ISA’s and pension contributions. Avoidance is legal but frowned upon as it’s not within the spirit of the law. Pensions/ISA’s are used the way the law intends
Well I mean there is a clear distinction between using a pension and using a scheme that misinterprets the law to avoid paying tax. Literally everyone has a pension
Not just that, it's a catch 22 at this point, you close all the loopholes and tax breaks that corporations/ super wealthy use and they will go elsewhere and avoid taxes in another country, which means we lose out on their business and it makes it less incentived to do business in the UK.
Keep them open and you can't capitalise on these people/business choosing to do it in the UK
But that line of thinking has been proven incorrect with other countries. And let's put it this way, do you think Amazon is going to stop doing business here because they would have to start paying taxes?
I think people who come out with this "they'll just leave the country" line just don't seem to consider the enormous time, expense and ballache that would go into doing that.
Can't really envision a situation where it wouldn't be cheaper just to take the tax hit.
And the losing access to one of the top 5 economies in the world (maybe we've fallen a bit but will be top 10 minimum) just because they'd have to pay tax. After all if they'd have to pay billions in tax it means they'll have made billions in profit, who's going to prefer zero profit, to billions
But what some classify as loopholes are very hard to objectively close I feel. E.g. having brands listed in the Cayman islands and that entity charging a royalty fee to the UK entity. I'm not sure how to close those loopholes.
I worked for (but fortunately left before) a company that did exactly this, they left due to tax changes. The department pretty much folded in short order because a tax laws came into effect that state that UK owned business that operated over seas had to pay UK tax based on the profit/turnover/whatever, they rolled up the business unit and I suspect shipped some of the workforce to the country it was operating originally in but under a different subsidiary. It was all to avoid paying excess tax on the UK and all about finding that oversees loophole where they could pay less tax. Shadey as all hell, but it does happen.
It won't happen with the likes of Amazon or Apple, but I'm sure they'll find their loopholes either way.
Even when they ignore that, one of the most common examples is Starbucks, I'm waiting to find out how Starbucks would leave the UK if we charged them more tax.
This is absolute fictional scare tactic nonsense. They will continue to make profit, because taxes are a share of the profit. They will never be in the red because of tax.
They keep saying this but, everytime they close one, they keep staying here. Theyre not just going to decide to not take profits anymore.
Its almost as if they're lying so that they don't have to pay their fair share of tax on the wealth they extract from other peoples work.
> they will go elsewhere and avoid taxes in another country, which means we lose out on their business and it makes it less incentived to do business in the UK.
not necessarily true. not necessarily a good thing.
if they want access to the uk market, they have to be in the uk market.
a lot of 'investment' like the trust funds, hedge funds and uk property market, are simply destructive parasitism.
we need investment into productive industries. the current policies have been killing that for 40 to 60 years. and where atrocious for developing healthy markets before that thanks to feudal bullshit.
They can't take their wealth elsewhere. Many super wealthy people are invested in physical infrastructure, office buildings, hotels, shopping centers etc. Tax the income from these places same as other people's income and it'll be fine, they can leave, but can't take that stuff with them.
>I wonder how much tax could be gained by closing loopholes...
Lots. But the Scottish govt don't have the power to do these things. They do have the power to vary tax rates to raise money for public services, nurses and teachers pay etc, but they don't want to do it.
This. Before levying more taxes, the government needs to close off all the tax avoidance methods. But they will never do that, as those are the same people that fund their party.
Non-doms - shareholders of corporations operating in the UK that shift profits back to their home country and pay out dividends, pay tax to foreign country rather than the UK. For instance Indian non-dom would pay flat 20% tax rate in India on dividends rather than higher tax in the UK.
IR35 changes - that botched legislation actually enable agencies to siphon billions out of the UK and killed thousands of small UK businesses. These changes also enabled unprecedented fraud through umbrella companies (Google MUC HMRC)
Diverted profits - big corporations are paying licensing costs and post other fake costs to their parent companies in tax havens avoiding paying UK corporation tax. HMRC has an instrument called Diverted Profit Tax, but they hardly use it.
Also look into charities, trust funds, non profits, NGOs.
Perhaps it could be good to restrict the use of credit / debit cards issued in tax havens. It's where wealthy individuals get paid to their companies in tax havens and the money really never touches the UK, but they spend money using their cards issued for those companies. Companies may not even be registered in their name, but some patsy. Having to register such card in the UK before being able to use it, could certainly help exposing that.
The problem for the UK is that a huge part of our economy is a financial sector that specialises in offshoring and protecting money for extremely wealthy people. The London stock exchange is relatively small, but the family bank sector is fucking gigantic. So it's unlikely that any government will do the right thing that actually helps real people, because then a bunch of bankers couldn't make millions helping the worst people keep billions.
Also kind of part of the reason we were reluctant to sanction Russian oligarchs - if your whole USP is that your money is safe with us, then a few crimes against humanity can't get in the way of that.
Rotten to the core, really.
The top 5% already pay 60% of the tax, how would imagine increasing tax further while expecting those to keep paying and not avoid or move out of the country.
Are they rich? No. Are they anywhere near the average nearly wage (currently nearly 40k a year, half as much as the 80k figure) god no. Anyone earning 80k a year is indeed more well off than the average person in a full time job.
Wrong in so many ways.
NMW isn't enough to lift people with children above the benefit threshold.
And don't start with the "get a better job" drivel. Some people CAN'T get a better job.
So does the private sector in large.
Do you think people working in KFC are happy with their salary? Remember private sector doesn't = good pay.
Tax the mega rich, not people working hard earning 30-120,000 for example
I would say lower the profit margin rather than more price increases, I'm now paying £6-7 for fast food, up the price any more and they will lose customers on a large scale
They arent choking with taxes, they are choking with assuming interest wouldnt go up on the homes they bought at the very top end of what they could afford, and can now not afford them
They are choking with taxes, they're the middle ground where assets don't benefit you directly and cost you and where there is no chance of gaining assets and there is assistance.
I earn 25k and own my own home, im plenty in touch.
I have no pity for those middle class people who are overspending, if youre middle class its not avocado toast, its expensive cars and houses bigger than you need, moving somewhere they cant afford, to suggest im using the avocado toast or netflix argument obscures the real issue, and shows you have no idea what you're talking about, keep renting.
Just jumping in, I think you're missing the broader point. The middle class are more exposed to loss and costs than those who are on benefits and the upper class.
This is just one example of many, but imagine you get dementia and require to be moved into a care home. The upper class can easily pay the costs.
Those on benefits, taxes will pay for it.
The middle class will lose everything or a significant sum of their savings.
There's countless other examples of how the middle class are getting squeezed and it's scary and difficult to plan for the all the eventualities that could potentially bankrupt you.
This broader issue should scare you. With earning £25K, you could be living comfortably within your means, being more careful than the people you mention, but it may only take something to go wrong to lose that foundation you have worked so hard to build with the support available out there for the middle class. I've of course generalised a lot here, but hopefully you see the general point I'm making. There's a lot of risks we are exposed to, which are becoming more and more difficult to hedge against.
It sounds like where middle class currently is, shouldnt be "middle class" but safety nets and bemefit structures havent caught up.
If i get a promotion and double my income, i wont move or vhange my spending habits until ive buikd a savings pot able to handle my new habits if something were to happen, anyone not doing this and immediately maxing themselves out again is stupid in my opinion
In regards to promotions, that's exactly the right sort of approach to take. Unfortunately there are people who are silly with their money out there. But not all come under that description.
In the scenario I gave about care homes. You could have a house paid off, hundreds of K in savings and still lose it all as the care home costs are astronomical. So even careful people like you and I are done for in that situation. That is an extreme situation, but is one of many things that could go terribly wrong for even the most careful in the middle class.
Oh id have passed on any wealth i accumilate to my kid(s) before care homes get their hands on it, additionally i plan to...exit myself if i become a burden to my surviving family
If youre getting choked with taxes, then it means your spending more of your money tban you should be, because the taxes, at least with PAYE come out first, how can you be getting choked with taxes if you lived within your means?
You say that, but I imagine they're a lot better off than *the poorest in our society*.
That said, taxes for the ultra-wealthy would be preferable. But that seems unlikely
What help is there for people that work full time on nmw? I see all this help for people on benefits which is good but people trying to run a household in 2 nmw salaries or even one I’ve seen aren’t entitled to anything.
I can’t think of any reason why anyone wouldn’t be able to make a claim on full time minimum wage, In fact I had one open for 2 years when I was a couple of quid above it. They provide a subsidy to help you reach a specified income. Usually I got about 60 quid a month but was far more than that when I was missing hours during COVID. Left me much better off than someone who was unable to work.
How does that end up helping the poorest? Take money off the rich and then act like daddy government and give the poor some pocket money?
How about raising the tax free allowance, dos the poor get to keep more of their money
Yes that's exactly how it helps the poorest, you tax the rich who often (or always) make their money from the labour of the poor, and who can afford more, and you use it to help the poorest, either through funding public services or direct help like benefits. The biggest issue most people face and where the largest inequality exists is housing, that's where the taxes really should go, build lots more social housing and it'll alleviate the cost of living crisis for many
You’re missing the point entirely.
Why should the poor suffer the indignity of receiving handouts? Why should the poor be dependent on the government?
If we lower taxes on the poor, you empower them, if you lower taxes on the poor you give them self respect. By treating them like an adult and an autonomous citizen who can make their own choices of what to do with their own money, and not be beholden to the whims of the state.
I personally think the tax free allowance should be £20k a year. So basically a full time minimum wage job is tax free and national insurance free. This would put about 3 grand in the pocket of a low income person.
Sure you have to raise the tax on middle and high income people, but this would help the poorest without treating the poorest like children.
Well the reason for that is that on minimum wage, even paying zero tax, rent, energy bills and food are still going to take up a huge amount of income. Also the poorest aren't people who are earning enough to be paying income tax, the poorest are on zero hour contracts and maybe get 20 hours a week or on benefits, your plan doesn't help anyone like that.
Those need to help themselves first by getting into full time employment.
What’s the point in taxing someone on minimum wage, to then turn around and give them money in benefits? Keeping them dependent on the government and all the indignities that come with mot being self sufficient.
Why not simply not tax these people.
Why does everyone want the government to have control over us and our finances.
The vast majority of people on benefits are not able to take on full time work, whether from disabilities, being an unpaid carer or are already in work but need the government to top up their wages because they are inadequate. I'm an unpaid carer as an example and as a reward for saving the government tens of thousands a year if they had to provide care for my family member, I get around £30 extra a week on top of the base rate universal credit of £334 a month. This is wholly inadequate for people to live on.
If we wanted to go your route, surely one of the best ways, it's an idea ive suggested before, is provide government funded driving lessons for the unemployed, a driving license will make it far easier to gain employment. Many companies, despite the current shortage still require multiple years of experience for entry level jobs, getting long term unemployed into full time work isn't an easy task
Yes I’m all for throwing money at training courses and skills for unemployed. Anything to help these people get into work. And I especially want to see work pay. There is no reason for people to be receiving ‘in work benefits’ a proper living wage and zero income taxes for lowest paid should solve that.
One of the main things we need to deal with is the cliffhanger between moving from benefits to work. My Dad has been on one of the sickness benefits because of a serious health problem. Thankfully he has overcome it, but when he looks for jobs, because of the withdrawal rate, his hour of labour ends up being worth about £4 an hour, compared to what he gets not working.
Unsure how other countries deal with it, but an obvious bottleneck is that withdrawal rate issue.
I'm not disputing that and I have tried to encourage him that he would still be better off overall, but via your logic, why don't we reduce the minimum wage to £0.01p per hour given that you'd still be better off
I don't know why this keeps floating around, people on basic benefits can fucking work. There's a difference between being on disability benefits and normal ones.
Yes single mums and people who are going through a rough time should get help. People who are reasonable healthy and have been on benefits for years should fucking work
Very few people are just on "basic benefits" though, the total amount paid on base rate jobseekers is something like £2 billion annually, a drop in the annual welfare bucket. As much as the right wing press likes to pretend otherwise, living unemployed on £73 a week is not some dream life, its actually pretty horrible for most people, you'll struggle to get housed since private rental agencies rarely accept people on benefits anymore and social housing is beyond stretched.
Public services aren’t the same as an actual cash handout. Poor people now aren’t net contributors, even though they pay tax. Even a lot of middle earners aren’t net contributors.
I agree in general it's dumb.
Even if you're saying the poor need more money, why take money off someone who you're going to give it back to.
It's just inefficient.
And ultimately most of that tax goes in to public coffers that Tory mates use like a piggy bank as the unethical ruling party look the other way.
Corruption, theft, and bloated inefficiency is plaguing us. The UK is a money laundering shit hole, and utility companies are being allowed to bleed everyone dry (ultimately because we sold our CNI)
Personal allowance is £12,570, if you lose personal allowance you pay the 20% on that first bit of income, you appear to be intentionally misunderstanding the tax system, so look it up and come back.
Additionally your maths would be wrong even if what you were saying was correct, which it isn't.
Those who benefit most from the current system are those who donate a lot of money to the political parties, those who offer jobs to sitting MPs, are friends/family of MPs, or those who control the largest media organisations. Raising taxes and closing loopholes is the obvious solution but any hint that might happen will be swiftly crushed by those who have the most influence. Hell, Sunak and his wife benefited from one arrangement until recently. How can we expect real change when our own PM is happy to exploit one of the loopholes that needs to be closed?
Scotland already has a higher tax burden on its residents than the rest of the UK - slightly more progressive, I'll admit, but slightly higher also is indisputable. The Scots government have a little more they can do with tax rates, but to increase them further would be unpopular, and if done in the next couple of years any tax rises will be headline news going into the next election. Which would not be positive for the current administration.
Disagree about raising taxes. How about all the big company bosses paying themselves less and giving their excess wages to the government to pay off debts!
The point is entrepreneurs, rich people, top earners etc know how to avoid paying so much taxes and it's the middle class who carry the burden all the time. More tax always means more tax on working class people.
Poor demand by STUC. Who will enforce this new tax? Non of the big majory parties want to step on the toes of big businesses.
The demand we need is workers control of the economy. Nationalise profits and if the demands aren't met then build up for an all out general strike
There’s lots of empirical evidence showing any increases in corporate taxes are mostly shifted onto workers and consumers. Tax incidence is a thing: taxes often don’t fall on those they’re actually levied upon ..
Raising tax will really do nothing you will have to change the tax laws internationally to successfully tax the rich and I am all for higher tax for higher brackets if it has benefits but let's be real the government operational efficiency is more of a tax drain than tax avoidance is.
**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wonder how much tax could be gained by closing loopholes, that the super rich take advantage off and capping how much can be spent as 'expenses'. Oh and if we stopped providing subsidies to private corporations. And forced international (Amazon) to pay taxes.
Billions, more revenue is lost through tax avoidance and evasion than Benifit Freud, if the government spent the same amount of money they spend catching benifit cheats on tax avoidance they could increase tax revenues by billions. But they won't because these are the tory donors
>Benifit Freud, Freudian slip...
Paying money into a pension is tax avoidance so that's only going to be true
Not quite, you get taxed when it’s paid
You usually avoid paying tax on the contributiond
Sigh, it’s tax planning and not avoidance.
Its true the Inland revenue may have tried to draw this distinction, but if there really is one then maybe they could get some work done collecting
It is actually called tax avoidance. The two terms are “tax avoidance” which is legal and then “tax evasion” which is not allowed.
Tax avoidance is essentially taking advantage of loop holes that are not in the spirit or goal of the tax system. Pension pot contributions are not tax avoidance because they have been designed withth the intent to be free from tax.
It’s actually called tax planning, there are three terms not two. Tax planning includes ISA’s and pension contributions. Avoidance is legal but frowned upon as it’s not within the spirit of the law. Pensions/ISA’s are used the way the law intends
So where do you draw the line between the two? Sounds like moralising to me.
Well I mean there is a clear distinction between using a pension and using a scheme that misinterprets the law to avoid paying tax. Literally everyone has a pension
Correct, or it was in normal times. Maybe tax planning means if they do it but tax avoidance is what richer people than them do.
Not just that, it's a catch 22 at this point, you close all the loopholes and tax breaks that corporations/ super wealthy use and they will go elsewhere and avoid taxes in another country, which means we lose out on their business and it makes it less incentived to do business in the UK. Keep them open and you can't capitalise on these people/business choosing to do it in the UK
But that line of thinking has been proven incorrect with other countries. And let's put it this way, do you think Amazon is going to stop doing business here because they would have to start paying taxes?
I think people who come out with this "they'll just leave the country" line just don't seem to consider the enormous time, expense and ballache that would go into doing that. Can't really envision a situation where it wouldn't be cheaper just to take the tax hit.
And the losing access to one of the top 5 economies in the world (maybe we've fallen a bit but will be top 10 minimum) just because they'd have to pay tax. After all if they'd have to pay billions in tax it means they'll have made billions in profit, who's going to prefer zero profit, to billions
But what some classify as loopholes are very hard to objectively close I feel. E.g. having brands listed in the Cayman islands and that entity charging a royalty fee to the UK entity. I'm not sure how to close those loopholes.
I worked for (but fortunately left before) a company that did exactly this, they left due to tax changes. The department pretty much folded in short order because a tax laws came into effect that state that UK owned business that operated over seas had to pay UK tax based on the profit/turnover/whatever, they rolled up the business unit and I suspect shipped some of the workforce to the country it was operating originally in but under a different subsidiary. It was all to avoid paying excess tax on the UK and all about finding that oversees loophole where they could pay less tax. Shadey as all hell, but it does happen. It won't happen with the likes of Amazon or Apple, but I'm sure they'll find their loopholes either way.
Even when they ignore that, one of the most common examples is Starbucks, I'm waiting to find out how Starbucks would leave the UK if we charged them more tax.
I suppose that depend on the amount of revenue involved
And even if they did leave? Oh the horror of having other retailers competing for our business.
This is absolute fictional scare tactic nonsense. They will continue to make profit, because taxes are a share of the profit. They will never be in the red because of tax.
They keep saying this but, everytime they close one, they keep staying here. Theyre not just going to decide to not take profits anymore. Its almost as if they're lying so that they don't have to pay their fair share of tax on the wealth they extract from other peoples work.
> they will go elsewhere and avoid taxes in another country, which means we lose out on their business and it makes it less incentived to do business in the UK. not necessarily true. not necessarily a good thing. if they want access to the uk market, they have to be in the uk market. a lot of 'investment' like the trust funds, hedge funds and uk property market, are simply destructive parasitism. we need investment into productive industries. the current policies have been killing that for 40 to 60 years. and where atrocious for developing healthy markets before that thanks to feudal bullshit.
Sin e 1979, still hate THATCHER
They can't take their wealth elsewhere. Many super wealthy people are invested in physical infrastructure, office buildings, hotels, shopping centers etc. Tax the income from these places same as other people's income and it'll be fine, they can leave, but can't take that stuff with them.
Isn't that almost verbatim what Liz Truss and BoJo have said. It wasn't true when they said it either.
>I wonder how much tax could be gained by closing loopholes... Lots. But the Scottish govt don't have the power to do these things. They do have the power to vary tax rates to raise money for public services, nurses and teachers pay etc, but they don't want to do it.
This. Before levying more taxes, the government needs to close off all the tax avoidance methods. But they will never do that, as those are the same people that fund their party.
They do a fair job of funding the country.
Which avoidance methods in particular?
Non-doms - shareholders of corporations operating in the UK that shift profits back to their home country and pay out dividends, pay tax to foreign country rather than the UK. For instance Indian non-dom would pay flat 20% tax rate in India on dividends rather than higher tax in the UK. IR35 changes - that botched legislation actually enable agencies to siphon billions out of the UK and killed thousands of small UK businesses. These changes also enabled unprecedented fraud through umbrella companies (Google MUC HMRC) Diverted profits - big corporations are paying licensing costs and post other fake costs to their parent companies in tax havens avoiding paying UK corporation tax. HMRC has an instrument called Diverted Profit Tax, but they hardly use it. Also look into charities, trust funds, non profits, NGOs. Perhaps it could be good to restrict the use of credit / debit cards issued in tax havens. It's where wealthy individuals get paid to their companies in tax havens and the money really never touches the UK, but they spend money using their cards issued for those companies. Companies may not even be registered in their name, but some patsy. Having to register such card in the UK before being able to use it, could certainly help exposing that.
The problem for the UK is that a huge part of our economy is a financial sector that specialises in offshoring and protecting money for extremely wealthy people. The London stock exchange is relatively small, but the family bank sector is fucking gigantic. So it's unlikely that any government will do the right thing that actually helps real people, because then a bunch of bankers couldn't make millions helping the worst people keep billions. Also kind of part of the reason we were reluctant to sanction Russian oligarchs - if your whole USP is that your money is safe with us, then a few crimes against humanity can't get in the way of that. Rotten to the core, really.
How about taxing enery companies for their extra profits?
Neh we'll just give them money instead with subsidies.
There are limits to what the government can do - there are international corporation tax frameworks which we must abide.
Which companies would you like to see lose subsidies?
Anything that is not a public service
You clearly do not understand how business workd and how damaging that would be. You seem to have a "Duh... Rich people bad... Duh" mentality.
I think i understand pretty well thanks
How's about fuck off. I'm not paying anymore fucking tax.
Heres a novel loony left idea. What if, we increased taxes on the richest in our country and decreased tax on the working class
Only half of working age adults pay any income tax.
The top 5% already pay 60% of the tax, how would imagine increasing tax further while expecting those to keep paying and not avoid or move out of the country.
If you were rich would you rather make 75 percent of your usual income or 0 percent
Are you making a statement or asking a question? what you just said makes no sense.
Well, Labour regards anyone making more than £80k as rich, so that is ridiculous.
Are they rich? No. Are they anywhere near the average nearly wage (currently nearly 40k a year, half as much as the 80k figure) god no. Anyone earning 80k a year is indeed more well off than the average person in a full time job.
Yeah, so you bring them down to level of 40k instead of bringing 40k up to 80k
But they are still working class.
Here's a loony right idea. What if, you got a job so you could pay taxes instead of claiming benefits?
Here's a loony idea. Let's make corporations pay fair wages so that full-time workers don't need to claim benefits
You already don't need to claim benefits
Wrong in so many ways. NMW isn't enough to lift people with children above the benefit threshold. And don't start with the "get a better job" drivel. Some people CAN'T get a better job.
[удалено]
Well you better. They public sector want and deserve a pay increase.
So does the private sector in large. Do you think people working in KFC are happy with their salary? Remember private sector doesn't = good pay. Tax the mega rich, not people working hard earning 30-120,000 for example
Yes. But that money doesn’t come from taxes. Pay higher prices for those wage increases.
I would say lower the profit margin rather than more price increases, I'm now paying £6-7 for fast food, up the price any more and they will lose customers on a large scale
Do you think that's expensive?
For mass produced fast food it is expensive.
I think the middle class is already choking with taxes and not much room to breathe
They arent choking with taxes, they are choking with assuming interest wouldnt go up on the homes they bought at the very top end of what they could afford, and can now not afford them
They are choking with taxes, they're the middle ground where assets don't benefit you directly and cost you and where there is no chance of gaining assets and there is assistance.
Sounds like excuses for living beyond ones means
The old avocado toast suggestion, how wrong and out of touch you are.
I earn 25k and own my own home, im plenty in touch. I have no pity for those middle class people who are overspending, if youre middle class its not avocado toast, its expensive cars and houses bigger than you need, moving somewhere they cant afford, to suggest im using the avocado toast or netflix argument obscures the real issue, and shows you have no idea what you're talking about, keep renting.
Just jumping in, I think you're missing the broader point. The middle class are more exposed to loss and costs than those who are on benefits and the upper class. This is just one example of many, but imagine you get dementia and require to be moved into a care home. The upper class can easily pay the costs. Those on benefits, taxes will pay for it. The middle class will lose everything or a significant sum of their savings. There's countless other examples of how the middle class are getting squeezed and it's scary and difficult to plan for the all the eventualities that could potentially bankrupt you. This broader issue should scare you. With earning £25K, you could be living comfortably within your means, being more careful than the people you mention, but it may only take something to go wrong to lose that foundation you have worked so hard to build with the support available out there for the middle class. I've of course generalised a lot here, but hopefully you see the general point I'm making. There's a lot of risks we are exposed to, which are becoming more and more difficult to hedge against.
It sounds like where middle class currently is, shouldnt be "middle class" but safety nets and bemefit structures havent caught up. If i get a promotion and double my income, i wont move or vhange my spending habits until ive buikd a savings pot able to handle my new habits if something were to happen, anyone not doing this and immediately maxing themselves out again is stupid in my opinion
In regards to promotions, that's exactly the right sort of approach to take. Unfortunately there are people who are silly with their money out there. But not all come under that description. In the scenario I gave about care homes. You could have a house paid off, hundreds of K in savings and still lose it all as the care home costs are astronomical. So even careful people like you and I are done for in that situation. That is an extreme situation, but is one of many things that could go terribly wrong for even the most careful in the middle class.
Oh id have passed on any wealth i accumilate to my kid(s) before care homes get their hands on it, additionally i plan to...exit myself if i become a burden to my surviving family
Spouting such boomer logic, amazing really.
If youre getting choked with taxes, then it means your spending more of your money tban you should be, because the taxes, at least with PAYE come out first, how can you be getting choked with taxes if you lived within your means?
You say that, but I imagine they're a lot better off than *the poorest in our society*. That said, taxes for the ultra-wealthy would be preferable. But that seems unlikely
What help is there for people that work full time on nmw? I see all this help for people on benefits which is good but people trying to run a household in 2 nmw salaries or even one I’ve seen aren’t entitled to anything.
I can’t think of any reason why anyone wouldn’t be able to make a claim on full time minimum wage, In fact I had one open for 2 years when I was a couple of quid above it. They provide a subsidy to help you reach a specified income. Usually I got about 60 quid a month but was far more than that when I was missing hours during COVID. Left me much better off than someone who was unable to work.
How does that end up helping the poorest? Take money off the rich and then act like daddy government and give the poor some pocket money? How about raising the tax free allowance, dos the poor get to keep more of their money
Yes that's exactly how it helps the poorest, you tax the rich who often (or always) make their money from the labour of the poor, and who can afford more, and you use it to help the poorest, either through funding public services or direct help like benefits. The biggest issue most people face and where the largest inequality exists is housing, that's where the taxes really should go, build lots more social housing and it'll alleviate the cost of living crisis for many
You’re missing the point entirely. Why should the poor suffer the indignity of receiving handouts? Why should the poor be dependent on the government? If we lower taxes on the poor, you empower them, if you lower taxes on the poor you give them self respect. By treating them like an adult and an autonomous citizen who can make their own choices of what to do with their own money, and not be beholden to the whims of the state. I personally think the tax free allowance should be £20k a year. So basically a full time minimum wage job is tax free and national insurance free. This would put about 3 grand in the pocket of a low income person. Sure you have to raise the tax on middle and high income people, but this would help the poorest without treating the poorest like children.
Well the reason for that is that on minimum wage, even paying zero tax, rent, energy bills and food are still going to take up a huge amount of income. Also the poorest aren't people who are earning enough to be paying income tax, the poorest are on zero hour contracts and maybe get 20 hours a week or on benefits, your plan doesn't help anyone like that.
Those need to help themselves first by getting into full time employment. What’s the point in taxing someone on minimum wage, to then turn around and give them money in benefits? Keeping them dependent on the government and all the indignities that come with mot being self sufficient. Why not simply not tax these people. Why does everyone want the government to have control over us and our finances.
The vast majority of people on benefits are not able to take on full time work, whether from disabilities, being an unpaid carer or are already in work but need the government to top up their wages because they are inadequate. I'm an unpaid carer as an example and as a reward for saving the government tens of thousands a year if they had to provide care for my family member, I get around £30 extra a week on top of the base rate universal credit of £334 a month. This is wholly inadequate for people to live on. If we wanted to go your route, surely one of the best ways, it's an idea ive suggested before, is provide government funded driving lessons for the unemployed, a driving license will make it far easier to gain employment. Many companies, despite the current shortage still require multiple years of experience for entry level jobs, getting long term unemployed into full time work isn't an easy task
Yes I’m all for throwing money at training courses and skills for unemployed. Anything to help these people get into work. And I especially want to see work pay. There is no reason for people to be receiving ‘in work benefits’ a proper living wage and zero income taxes for lowest paid should solve that.
One of the main things we need to deal with is the cliffhanger between moving from benefits to work. My Dad has been on one of the sickness benefits because of a serious health problem. Thankfully he has overcome it, but when he looks for jobs, because of the withdrawal rate, his hour of labour ends up being worth about £4 an hour, compared to what he gets not working. Unsure how other countries deal with it, but an obvious bottleneck is that withdrawal rate issue.
Do you mean he is £4 an hour, or £32 a day, or £160 a week, or £640 a month or £7680 a year better off in work?
I'm not disputing that and I have tried to encourage him that he would still be better off overall, but via your logic, why don't we reduce the minimum wage to £0.01p per hour given that you'd still be better off
I don't know why this keeps floating around, people on basic benefits can fucking work. There's a difference between being on disability benefits and normal ones. Yes single mums and people who are going through a rough time should get help. People who are reasonable healthy and have been on benefits for years should fucking work
Very few people are just on "basic benefits" though, the total amount paid on base rate jobseekers is something like £2 billion annually, a drop in the annual welfare bucket. As much as the right wing press likes to pretend otherwise, living unemployed on £73 a week is not some dream life, its actually pretty horrible for most people, you'll struggle to get housed since private rental agencies rarely accept people on benefits anymore and social housing is beyond stretched.
[удалено]
Public services aren’t the same as an actual cash handout. Poor people now aren’t net contributors, even though they pay tax. Even a lot of middle earners aren’t net contributors.
I agree in general it's dumb. Even if you're saying the poor need more money, why take money off someone who you're going to give it back to. It's just inefficient.
Take back the money that was effectively stolen during covid? 🫢
The poor don't pay tax & the rich don't have to. The burden is always on the middle, who can't take anymore.
The poor aren't your enemy. THey pay far high proportion of income intaxes like VAT
Lol 20% tax is nothing. People in this thread will pay 40% or 60% tax on large chunks of their income.
And ultimately most of that tax goes in to public coffers that Tory mates use like a piggy bank as the unethical ruling party look the other way. Corruption, theft, and bloated inefficiency is plaguing us. The UK is a money laundering shit hole, and utility companies are being allowed to bleed everyone dry (ultimately because we sold our CNI)
Correct answer
45% being the top tax rate in the uk, where are you getting 60% from?
You lose personal allowance after 100k; so an extra 20% tax on 100-125k. 40% + 20% = 60%
Personal allowance is £12,570, if you lose personal allowance you pay the 20% on that first bit of income, you appear to be intentionally misunderstanding the tax system, so look it up and come back. Additionally your maths would be wrong even if what you were saying was correct, which it isn't.
[It's a well known fact](https://www.sjp.co.uk/news/beat-the-60-tax-trap); I'm sorry you don't earn enough to understand this.
Those who benefit most from the current system are those who donate a lot of money to the political parties, those who offer jobs to sitting MPs, are friends/family of MPs, or those who control the largest media organisations. Raising taxes and closing loopholes is the obvious solution but any hint that might happen will be swiftly crushed by those who have the most influence. Hell, Sunak and his wife benefited from one arrangement until recently. How can we expect real change when our own PM is happy to exploit one of the loopholes that needs to be closed?
Tax varying powers are already being used in Scotland, the tax burden is already slightly higher, there's only so much flex in the system.
> there's only so much flex in the system. What does that mean?
Scotland already has a higher tax burden on its residents than the rest of the UK - slightly more progressive, I'll admit, but slightly higher also is indisputable. The Scots government have a little more they can do with tax rates, but to increase them further would be unpopular, and if done in the next couple of years any tax rises will be headline news going into the next election. Which would not be positive for the current administration.
The only issue is energy companies, ofgem and the Tories are in on a racket! Money laundering and causing all of this chaos
At this point, they really need to start taxing the actual rich, not dumping more on the middle earners who are just about coping as it is.
Disagree about raising taxes. How about all the big company bosses paying themselves less and giving their excess wages to the government to pay off debts!
The point is entrepreneurs, rich people, top earners etc know how to avoid paying so much taxes and it's the middle class who carry the burden all the time. More tax always means more tax on working class people.
Poor demand by STUC. Who will enforce this new tax? Non of the big majory parties want to step on the toes of big businesses. The demand we need is workers control of the economy. Nationalise profits and if the demands aren't met then build up for an all out general strike
There’s lots of empirical evidence showing any increases in corporate taxes are mostly shifted onto workers and consumers. Tax incidence is a thing: taxes often don’t fall on those they’re actually levied upon ..
Isn't Britain taxing everyone to death, taxes isn't the answer here, its the laws to avoid loopholes, ensuring that workers can earn a % of profits
Raising tax will really do nothing you will have to change the tax laws internationally to successfully tax the rich and I am all for higher tax for higher brackets if it has benefits but let's be real the government operational efficiency is more of a tax drain than tax avoidance is.
We could also cut spending elsewhere to spend more on the poorest, that is also an option